An Act to readjust the national minimum wage to the rate it would have been at if it had grown with inflation since it's initial introduction, so reducing unemployment and aiding the economic recovery and long-run performance. It then creates a tapering of the minimum wage up to the age of 25, to help reduce the problem of youth unemployment. It's a model tried in Holland that works better than the distinct rates.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1 National Minimum Wage
(1) The national minimum wage shall be according to Schedule 1.
(2) The national minimum wage shall increase each year on October 1 by the highest of the following measures:
(a) Retail Prices Index
(b) Consumer Prices Index

In response to Eru's point raised here that those on the minimum wage would be taxed at 37% according to TSR Poverty Abolition Act 2010 (PAA), I should clarify that this is not correct. Although the PAA declares that "All income above the calculated minimum shall be taxed at thirty-seven pence in the pound", this does not mean that there is no longer a Personal Income Tax Allowance exempt from Income Tax.

Whilst the PAA does not explicitly mention this, the figures used to quantify the cost of the Bill were based on the assumption that a Personal Income Tax Allowance would remain. Therefore you can be rest assured that despite the ostensible anomaly, anyone working for the minimum wage under this new Bill for a couple of hours would most definitely not earn enough to pay 37 pence in the pound towards Income Tax.

(Original post by sandys1000)
Why have you removed the guarantee that the minimum wage won't fall with deflation?

If the minimum wage is to try to guarantee a certain standard of living, then when there is deflation, the price of purchasing the goods for that standard of living falls, and thus the wage needed also falls.

(Original post by simontinsley)
If the minimum wage is to try to guarantee a certain standard of living, then when there is deflation, the price of purchasing the goods for that standard of living falls, and thus the wage needed also falls.

(Original post by Anony mouse)
The reason is the same as for the premise of this Bill: that the minimum wage should be in line with inflation.

Why not just scrap it entirely? It hurts many of the people who it is meant to help, and I've experienced this personally. Besides, there's still a huge amount of businesses that pay above the minimum wage for what is essentially extremely basic labour.

(Original post by sandys1000)
Then why was this included in the first reading?

Simply an oversight on our part.

(Original post by Smack)
Why not just scrap it entirely? It hurts many of the people who it is meant to help, and I've experienced this personally. Besides, there's still a huge amount of businesses that pay above the minimum wage for what is essentially extremely basic labour.

(Original post by sandys1000)
What has been changed? The definition of 'apprentice'?

Not much, in all honesty. In terms of what the Bill does, only removing that 0% triple lock.

The bit on apprentices still does the same thing, it removes the minimum wage for apprentices, it's just better written in that it actually repeals the part of UK legislation responsible for a minimum wage for apprentices being in force. The definition of apprentice has changed from the one on the first reading to the one in the relevant statutory instrument.

(Original post by Mann18)
The minimum wage as it is I feel isn't really high enough.

It's difficult enough to live on the minimum wage, pushing it down would make things even harder. I cannot vote for that.

It's also difficult to live if you are priced out of any sort of paid work due to the minimum wage. Pushing it down would, whilst making things a little bit harder for some people, allow more people to benefit from paid employment.

(Original post by Smack)
It's also difficult to live if you are priced out of any sort of paid work due to the minimum wage. Pushing it down would, whilst making things a little bit harder for some people, allow more people to benefit from paid employment.

We're just coming out of recession, and you'd like to see this? People already cannot make a living off of a minimum wage job. Decreasing the minimum wage would not help the economy because people would not be able to spend. That is the problem, the low level of spending from the average consumer.

All this would do is increase poverty, and further weaken the economy. It could also increase crimes rates. People in already low-income areas will turn to crime.

I realise the logic behind what you're saying, but I really do not believe in this on a prinicple level. There also is no guarantee that unemployment would drop. The apprentice wage is also ridiculous, and should be raised up to the lowest age threshold at least.

(Original post by Mann18)
We're just coming out of recession, and you'd like to see this? People already cannot make a living off of a minimum wage job. Decreasing the minimum wage would not help the economy because people would not be able to spend. That is the problem, the low level of spending from the average consumer.

Yes I'd like to see this because I think that just coming out of a recession it is extremely important that we do what we can to increase employment.

Leftists are arguing about protecting the few who are fortunate enough to have a minimum wage job, whereas I'm more interesting expanding the benefits of employment to a larger group of people that are currently priced out of the jobs market. Capitalism always ****s on the people the lowest down, and I see this as the most pragmatic solution to seeing less people getting **** on. That's why I support this as a moderate.

All this would do is increase poverty, and further weaken the economy. It could also increase crimes rates. People in already low-income areas will turn to crime.

I don't believe that at all. More people would have jobs, and I'm sure I've seen statistics that say that people who have jobs are less likely to commit crime.

I realise the logic behind what you're saying, but I really do not believe in this on a prinicple level. There also is no guarantee that unemployment would drop.

Well there's really no guarantee of anything in life other than death and taxes. But companies will be able to afford a larger workforce, which would in turn make things get done more efficiently and quickly.

The apprentice wage is also ridiculous, and should be raised up to the lowest age threshold at least.

I think that the apprentice wage is fair, given that people are getting an education and a wage at the same time. Often, they'll come out with a college qualification as well as several years work experience, which makes them valuable to employers.